Julio Huato wrote:
I wasn't the one who started this rehashing of the old debate.
Anyway, my rationale in arguing for the need to cooperate with the DP
in the 2004 elections was a pretty rough cost-benefit calculation:
In 2004, all evidence indicated that, if Bush got re-"elected" (or
"re"-elected) or re-selected we would have more of his aggressively
militaristic brand of imperialism and more of his enrich-the-richest
economic policies. More concretely, that would translate into
prolonging the bloody occupation of Iraq that gave us (inter alia) Abu
Ghraib and the obliteration of Fallujah with radioactive and chemical
artillery, threatening Iran, harassing Venezuela and Cuba, plotting
coups and political assassinations, extending taxcuts for the hyper
rich, starving "the beast" (the source of funds for social programs),
eroding Social Security and Medicare, fumbling macro policymaking,
auctioning off trade policy to special interests (even worse than
under Clinton), etc. Other four years of that were extremely costly
for workers in the U.S. and abroad not to take it seriously.
I thought that myself, and still do somewhat, but it must be conceded
that Bush has done serious damage to the American empire: its
reputation hasn't been this low since Vietnam, and it may be lower
now; its finances are in terrible shape; the military is so stretched
that new adventures would be hard to imagine; and while he's been off
on his frolic in Iraq, Latin America has moved steadily to the left
with a surprisingly weak (so far) response from Washington.
Domestically, the reputation of the Republican party and its policies
are in tatters, with only the hardcore base now expressing approval.
This is something to work with, not that the Dems are the ones to do
it.
Doug
